What do you think would happen if there was no political parties?

What if there was no political parties to align to? Even better, what if these elected parties were only elected as volunteers? I was just trying to think of how to unite as a Nation and stop some of the corruption. My thinking is, we vote for presidents based on what they can get done in office rather then who their alignment is to. Also, if they were volunteers, I think they would care more about serving citizens then themselves. More or less to be part of the system and history of this country. What do you think would happen? P.S. (I don't want to hear it wont work, be creative)

a reply to: CaliGirl69

First cultures must align, if not, then it could never be a communal type entity with perhaps elders and more experienced members showing the way forward. Even tribal entities have problems because they demand loyalty and conforming for belonging...not you thinking. So then, you see, there can never be a cultural alignment because someone will always be thinking for themselves.

a reply to: CaliGirl69

If there were no political parties, we would invent them.

I'm not being snarky.

In a political system that is even quasi-democratic someone has to get a little over 50% of the vote to get power. That means you have to aggregate the interests of at least half the population behind some platform or another. That leaves about half the population to rally behind a competing platform. A democratic republic without political parties is an unstable situation. Political parties will spontaneously organize and compete in a Darwinian contest.

a reply to: CaliGirl69

imagine the joy in the silence from the endless diatribe that EVERY politician utters when they open their vapid mouths

E
C
S
T
A
S
Y

a reply to: CaliGirl69

That would be a better world. One where people actually cared about each other

a reply to: UpThenDown

Partial lyrics from 1999 song:

Let me tell ya something
If you didn't come to party
Don't bother knockin' on my door
I got a lion in my pocket
And, baby, he's ready to roar
Yeah, yeah

See now, even Prince expected a certain cultural conformity.

a reply to: CaliGirl69

First, volentery only would mean only rich people could afford it. So most of the population could not be in any office.

Next, how are the candidates supposed to be voted for by how they perform in office without having ever served in any office? Just more campaign promises as usual.

No parties? I could go with that, but who is going to pay for the campaigns? We are back to only rich people again.

I think the best solution is to limit all eledgable to be elected for office to be limited to 10 years. Doesn't matter what federal or state or local level, 10 years and you are done for all elected offices.

a reply to: CaliGirl69

That's an interesting idea and please don't shoot the messenger, but.....it's not really a new idea as far as the US is concerned.

My all-time favorite President of the US is George Washington and he vehemently argued against the establishment of political parties. He had witnessed the damage they had done in the UK and thought it better that there be no political parties. As well, in the early days of the "Republic" many saw high office as volunteer work. They were paid very little and often times had to trave, by horse, or horse and carriage, many hundreds of miles to serve in an elected office. That meant time away from farm and family and probably cost the family dearly at a time when "man power" was needed to tend the family farm or business.

As to present times, we are in an era of "Machine Politics" and only one party, the Democrats, really have any Party Machine(s) going. The result of this is that at both a national level and in the case of many States and all of the major metropolitan areas, there's only the "One" Party to rule them all, the Democrat Party. At the "National Level" and in some states, there's the old "Republican" party. However when it comes to Republican candidates for the House and Senate, i.e., the National Government, most all of those calling themselves "Republican" are actually "Democrats" so when you go to vote for a Senate candidate or a Representative, you really only have the one choice, a Democrat running as a Democrat and a Democrat running as a Republican. I'm guessing here, but I think the only "distinction" between the two is which Country Club they belong to back home.

Sadly as the Nation has devolved to One Party rule, (like Canada, Australia and the UK), there have been the usual consequences: concentration of power in a few hands, widespread fraud and corruption, ever increasing Authoritarian Rule, Rule by unelected bureacrats in Federal Agencies, the diminishment of Representative Governance, and with the Party dominance of the Media, ever decreasing transparency. Now of course, the Party is pursuing the course laid out in California of killing off the middle class and small business such that everyone is forced to either work for the Government, work for the Tech Oligarchs or work for what amounts to Nationalized industries run by the government, i.e., Government Motors.

As we've seen in other "One Party" Nations, China being an example with the CCP, once One Party Rule is established, it's near impossible to eradicate because a person's health and welfare is tied to Party Membership and Loyalty. You don't get a job at the FBI as a "Republican".

As to unitiing the Country? Good luck. The open borders policy of the Party has meant that ship has long since sailed AND, division has become a business model.

You'd have nothing to fight over and actually change the world for the better? No, we can't have that.

I’ll give you the island test.

I give you an island. You are solely and 100% in charge. You make all the rules.

There’s just one catch. You have no say who lives on the island. Therefore, you will have diversity in thinking, cultures, religions, leaders/followers, etc.

How do you rule your island?

I can tell you everyone I asked this question became a dictator with a gun. “My island, you’ll do as I say”.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: CaliGirl69

First cultures must align, if not, then it could never be a communal type entity with perhaps elders and more experienced members showing the way forward. Even tribal entities have problems because they demand loyalty and conforming for belonging...not you thinking. So then, you see, there can never be a cultural alignment because someone will always be thinking for themselves.

YES!

Communal living must be agreed upon by its participants.

People should vote for who they think is best equipped to lead our nation. Not based on political affiliation. I meet very few people who align with either political party 100%. Forcing people to sacrifice morals with a 2 party system is why less than half this country voters. We're politically homeless...

My political philosophy is I think married gay couples should be able to protect their marijuana crop with firearms. Where does that put me?

If we have no political parties and we are left with a plutocratic monarchy. We should numerous political parties so when they inevitably become corrupt or outdated we have an off ramp of sorts. Right now we have 2 political parties leading us down the same road to destruction the only difference is one party is in the fast lane and the other is in the slow lane.

a reply to: CaliGirl69

Pretty much the same people would get into office, as the winner would still be determined by money.

The main difference would be that government would have to rely more heavily on things like race, age, social status, and gender to divide the masses. They may find it helpful to define some new dividing lines to keep the people from uniting for the common good.

a reply to: CaliGirl69

the vacuum of no political parties would likely be a power structures of Sheriffs & Marshalls ---- common folk -----lawless gangs/cartels

originally posted by: CaliGirl69
What if there was no political parties to align to?

Then the same people who like their partisan labels (and echo chambers) would just find new labels for themselves... and everyone else. Instead of Republican and Democrat, we'd have conservative and liberal... Christian right and progressive... pro-choice or pro-life... Nationalist or globalist... straight or queer... So many labels to choose from, and so many more just waiting to be coined, those who want labels will find labels. Those who demand labels will create labels.

I was just trying to think of how to unite as a Nation and stop some of the corruption.

Nothing is stopping us -- We The People -- from doing that now... except our own sorry selves. And that's our biggest problem. Our biggest challenge.

My thinking is, we vote for presidents based on what they can get done in office rather then who their alignment is to.

In theory, we should already be doing this. I think the problem is that people assume that the candidate representing the party will act in accordance with the will of their voters... but that doesn't necessarily happen.

Also, if they were volunteers, I think they would care more about serving citizens then themselves.

I'm not sure that follows. Ever heard the saying that you've gotta spend money to make money? The basic premise is that one has to invest something before profiting something. Some folks might consider "volunteering" to make the rules a worthwhile investment in order to profit from the rules...

There is absolutely nothing stopping us -- as individuals and collectively -- to stop playing the partisan games and stand together as We The People. Nothing.

How do we get people to stop trying to be mini-tyrants, imposing their will on everyone else, and to stand together for the greater good?

I have no idea... or I would have done it a looooooooong time ago.

I think you all aught to read the History of the USA. When the Government first started THAT is what you had. You voted for the person in your area that represented you. Yes they might have called themselves Liberal etc. but that was just a label. Hence that is where the house of representatives came from, they represented you. A nice little bit for you, Davy Crockett. He represented people he knew, yes, he identified as a Whig, a National Republican, but he fought for the people not the party.

originally posted by: crayzeed
I think you all aught to read the History of the USA. When the Government first started THAT is what you had. You voted for the person in your area that represented you.

Or what they offered as incentives: George Washington Plied Voters with Booze.

Crocket was independent (Liberal) due to his chosen lifestyle, but — during his six years in Congress, he failed to get a single bill passed. How effective was he?

a reply to: crayzeed

I've been saying for a long time now that our party political system here in the UK is morally redundant and no longer fit-for-purpose.

All elected officials, at every level, should stand as Independents with their own manifesto's and judged on their own individual performance by the electorate.

a reply to: Annee
Therefore, therefore, what's the lesson learnt? Crockett fought for the people he knew and he failed because he was one. A guy called Aesop learnt this lesson a couple of thousand years ago with his Parable of a bundle of sticks. A group of people together (a political party) can out vote any party with lesser members. That is why there are political parties and nobody no time will change that.

a reply to: CaliGirl69

Then it would be simple.

Those that want bigger controlling government versus those who embrace freedom.